Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

215 F.2d 678

Docket Nos. 11899, 11900.

Clark Equipment Co. v. Weeks

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Jan. 26, 1954.

Decided Feb. 18, 1954.

Petition for Rehearing Denied Oct. 15, 1954.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1954-02-18

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently April 1964

12 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Pinkerton v. United States · Claassen v. United States · Whitfield v. Ohio

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1954-02-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Mr. John A. Dienner, Washington, D. C. , with whom Messrs. Francis C. Browne and William E. Schuyler, Jr., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant.

¶2Mr. E. L. Reynolds, Sol., Washington, D. C., for appellees.

¶3Before EDGERTON, PRETTYMAN, and DANAHER, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5The District Court sustained appellees in refusing to register, as alleged trademarks for appellant’s fork lift trucks, the terms Trucloader and Carloader. The court found that these are generic names of the goods and have not become distinctive of appellant’s goods. We see no reason to disturb these findings. We need not consider whether these “generic names” might some day become distinctive of appellant’s goods and whether, if they did, they would be entitled to registration. During the argument of these appeals it was suggested that “Clark’s Trucloader” and “Clark’s Carloader” might be entitled to registration, but that question is not before us.

¶6Affirmed.

/215/f2d/678 · .json · Public domain